We can blame one party for the crippled 13" MBP: Intel.

[Apolloe]

My only point is with the above statement is that the upgrades Apple made DID NOT add to the cost of the MBP. Apple is making some $$ on this version!

The graphics is not a wash for me. Seeing that the 3dmark06 score went up roughly 2000 pts is something that is of value to me.

As for making some $$ on this version, do you think that other companies are not on their similar laptops? If you think they are not, but are offering better value, I'd like to know which laptops you think are. You mentioned the Vaio - which one? From what I could tell, the Vaio's were just as much if not more costly. Though where they did cost more, you got more as well.

 

[harmonica01]

The graphics is not a wash for me. Seeing that the 3dmark06 score went up roughly 2000 pts is something that is of value to me.

As for making some $$ on this version, do you think that other companies are not on their similar laptops? If you think they are not, but are offering better value, I'd like to know which laptops you think are. You mentioned the Vaio - which one? From what I could tell, the Vaio's were just as much if not more costly. Though where they did cost more, you got more as well.

agreed

I strongly believe apple makes a solid chunk of their money from BTO computer rigs anyways

 

[tdream]

Speaking of rhetoric, that was some fine grade nonsense. Do you have any "logic" to back up your conclusion that our wallets will be all the lighter for it? I have posted in this thread and in another, asking for these supposed mythical "better deals" offered by other companies. I don't own a mac, and never have. I've spent a lot of time researching laptops for my current purchase, and (with student discounts) the macbook pro comes across as very competitively priced for what you get. I will probably buy one in a day or two. Since you know so much, perhaps *you* can point out to me the "better deal" laptop that I can't find. I'd be genuinely appreciative of being shown wrong. Until then, you seem as bad as the supposed fanboys you love to mock.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you can't find a better deal, well then pay up.

Regarding battery, let's check the history - you quote the watt-hour difference between the batteries, and says that doesn't equal 3 hours. So what? Since you're such a good wielder of logic, science, and real experience, you already know that's not the only way to improve how long something will run before needing a recharge. fuzzielitlpanda rightly points out that he didn't just pull the number from nowhere, nor did Apple. Real world tests of the laptop - running it doing the same tasks as 2009 macbook, and timing how long it drains in comparison - will determine if Apple's claims are accurate. Not some lame gesture to the battery capacity differences, ignoring everything else.

So what? Typical response. ie. you couldn't care less and good for you.

I don't call surfing a flashless internet, not downloading anything in the background, not listening to music, not watching videos, not watching HD videos and typing a few words in iwork - "normal usage".

I have the up to 7 hour macbook pro 13 and I have never gotten a full 7 hours out of it, not even close. Right now it's fully charged up, downloading files in the background. Watching normal youtube, cpu usage 32% 3:58hr.

Youtube HD cpu usage 60%-140% 2:41hr.

Gizmodo test under real conditions and haven't even gotten over the 4 hour mark with all previous gen macbooks.

http://gizmodo.com/5287179/macbook-pro-2009-review

Personally I like to do more than just surf a flashless internet and actually do more than just type...

 

[tdream]

The graphics is not a wash for me. Seeing that the 3dmark06 score went up roughly 2000 pts is something that is of value to me.

As for making some $$ on this version, do you think that other companies are not on their similar laptops? If you think they are not, but are offering better value, I'd like to know which laptops you think are. You mentioned the Vaio - which one? From what I could tell, the Vaio's were just as much if not more costly. Though where they did cost more, you got more as well.

Netbooks that cost $399 have the same graphics as the 2009 macbook pro...

If they didn't upgrade at all it would be embarrassing.

 

[Dwalls90]

We can all agree that the 320M is an improvement ... but you must take into account that the performance compared to comparable 13" laptops is on the same level of those from years ago ... the MBP's were long overdue for a refresh, and I think most of us agree that the 15" and 17" MBP's received a pretty fair and solid upgrade, but the 13" got more or less screwed.

 

[lilo777]

Netbooks that cost $399 have the same graphics as the 2009 macbook pro...

If they didn't upgrade at all it would be embarrassing.

It is still embarrassing but they had to go this route because they had to skimp on R&D budget in favor of advertising. Did you notice that Apple runs iPad commercials during every TV show these days?

 

[fuzzielitlpanda]

An i3 would cost more than the Core 2 that is currently used. So this means a more expensive 13" MBP.

A dedicated graphics chip would cost much more than an integrated graphics chip. So this means a more expensive 13" MBP.

If Apple were too "lazy" to do it, to not be "lazy" would mean Apple actually working on it, that is, spending research and development on it which costs more than being "lazy". So this means a more expensive 13" MBP.

What you then have is a dramatically more expensive 13" MBP which completely misses the target audience of people wanting a cheap, portable Mac.

if you look at my other posts, this is exactly what i've been trying to tell people. i'm sure apple thought about putting i3 in there, but it just made more sense to stick with core 2 duo and improve on other things and keep the cost of the mbp the same.

 

[vant]

if you look at my other posts, this is exactly what i've been trying to tell people. i'm sure apple thought about putting i3 in there, but it just made more sense to stick with core 2 duo and improve on other things and keep the cost of the mbp the same.

What would be the point of putting an i3 in there? To satisfy some spec whoring needs?

The 2.66 C2D is faster in most cases than any Mobile i3 out there. People want it because it's the newest, but it is definitely not the greatest. To be honest, the difference between the 2.66 vs the 350 i3 would be unnoticeable. 2.4 vs the 330 i3 should be also unnoticeable. It would be pointless to waste R&D (which I'm sure they did) to try and make the i3 work, when it doesn't provide any noticeable increases in performance.

We then have the debate about the discreet GPU. The Sony Z did it, but at what cost? Increased thickness, reduced battery, and increased price.

 

[fuzzielitlpanda]

What would be the point of putting an i3 in there? To satisfy some spec whoring needs?

The 2.66 C2D is faster in most cases than any Mobile i3 out there. People want it because it's the newest, but it is definitely not the greatest. To be honest, the difference between the 2.66 vs the 350 i3 would be unnoticeable. 2.4 vs the 330 i3 should be also unnoticeable. It would be pointless to waste R&D (which I'm sure they did) to try and make the i3 work, when it doesn't provide any noticeable increases in performance.

We then have the debate about the discreet GPU. The Sony Z did it, but at what cost? Increased thickness, reduced battery, and increased price.

I completely agree. I've looked at benchmarks of laptops that have the i3 and they're pretty much on the same level as a similar core 2 duo

 

[mikeo007]

I'm still wondering why everyone is talking about the i3? It's like the Celeron of the i-series processors. I for one was expecting an i5, even if it was only an upper end option. As others are saying, the high end C2D is on par with the i3, but the i3 is cheap junk anyway, it's meant to go in low priced Dell & HP crap. A pro machine deserves an i5. I swear, if the macbook air gets refreshed and ends up with an i5, people are going to go ape s**t.

 

[Apolloe]

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you can't find a better deal, well then pay up.

You're the one making the claim. I've done my homework - I've looked at a lot of laptops. If I've missed it, and you know the laptop off the top of your head, tell me. The fact that you say you'd be "doing" my homework for me implies you don't actually know such a competitive laptop exists...you just assume you'd find it if you looked.

So what? Typical response. ie. you couldn't care less and good for you.

I care very much about the battery life

Gizmodo test under real conditions and haven't even gotten over the 4 hour mark with all previous gen macbooks.

http://gizmodo.com/5287179/macbook-pro-2009-review

Personally I like to do more than just surf a flashless internet and actually do more than just type...

Because real conditions involve watching a H.264 movie for the entire time your laptop is running? Apple lists "up to" for the hours usage (for 2009, iirc), and lists how they got that many hours. Gizmodo review lists 3:31 hours. I've seen a review for the new 15" that gets just shy of 8 hours for their test:
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-15-inch-core-i7.aspx?page=2

Tests like these reviews do are more useful than your personal experience. These tests try to maintain fixed conditions for the duration (at least, I hope they do), and report what battery life is like under those conditions. Battery life is conditional on circumstances. Not just reading the battery time left icon while doing differing tasks.

Netbooks that cost $399 have the same graphics as the 2009 macbook pro...

If they didn't upgrade at all it would be embarrassing.

I don't know much about the 2009 macbook pro. I've started researching now that the new ones have come out, and so I'm only talking about the value of the current model.

Regarding the price you listed - I took a look at the Dell USA website, and found the Inspiron 14 which seems to be close to what you claim (price was higher to get that CPU). It does seem to be a better deal compared to the 2009 13" macbook pro. Australian Dell website (where I live) does not have Inspiron 14. Closest Dell laptops to the Macbook Pro 13" 2010 model are not such a good deal compared to the Macbook. Even to 2009, they're expensive. They all seem comparably priced (macbook vs other pc laptops) for what you get.

Maybe in the USA the situation is different - I don't know. But you are talking about the 2009 model vs what's offered now. So maybe you'd have had a case two weeks ago before the refresh. It was my opinion just before the refresh that the Apple laptops were easily overpriced for what you got. But I'm talking about *now*.

 

[kny3twalker]

ThinkPad T410 Intel Core i5-520M Processor (2.40GHz, 3MB L3, 1066MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64
14.1 WXGA+ TFT, w/ LED Backlight
NVIDIA NVS 3100m Graphics 256MB DDR3 with AMT
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
Camera, 2.0 MP
250 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm
DVD Recordable 8x Max Dual Layer, Ultrabay Slim (Serial ATA)
6 cell 2.6Ah Li-Ion Battery - Dual Mode
Bluetooth w/ antenna
Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6200 (2x2 AGN)

Estimated total: $966.96*

~$250 less than base macbook pro with discrete graphics.
(this is from lenovo.com/spp, so if you used apple student discount ~$150 less)
This computer is a competitor for the 13" macbook pro

While the graphics are probably no faster than the 320m, the thinkpad has a i5

last fall the 13" macbook pro was much more comparable to the T400

 

[Apolloe]

~$250 less than base macbook pro with discrete graphics.
(this is from lenovo.com/spp, so if you used apple student discount ~$150 less)
This computer is a competitor for the 13" macbook pro

Cheapest Thinkpad T410 here in Australia is significantly more than the cheapest 13" macbook pro, with student discount. $600 more for the base T410 over the base macbook pro 13". Perhaps USA has better deals than here that are not Apple.

Edit: I think the graphics on that T410 you just listed are worse than the new macbook pro 13", based on this website (which is just a guide, so won't be fully accurate):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

 

[kny3twalker]

Cheapest Thinkpad T410 here in Australia is significantly more than the cheapest 13" macbook pro, with student discount. $600 more for the base T410 over the base macbook pro 13". Perhaps USA has better deals than here that are not Apple.

Edit: I think the graphics on that T410 you just listed are worse than the new macbook pro 13", based on this website (which is just a guide, so won't be fully accurate):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

the graphics are comparable overall, but yeah the 320m is slightly faster. Nonetheless the core i5 kicks the **** out of the core2duo. This was also a nicely equipped thinkpad, not a standard configuration.

 

[mark28]

Intel preventing Apple from licensing alternative integrated GPU's (i.e. 320M) in combination with the Arrandale CPU's is why we now have a C2D instead of an i3/i5 in the 13" MBP. Doesn't this infuriate anyone? I'm shocked that Apple didn't give Intel a 'kind' kick-in-the-pants. Hopefully these rumors of Apple meeting with AMD will threaten Intel. Hopefully Intel will be less likely to be such a cry-baby with their licensing and Apple doesn't give Intel priority with future products. I understand that i3 counterparts are marginally faster than C2D, but i5 blows C2D out of the water ... and we would have still seen battery life on par, if not still better, than the 15"/17" MBP's.

Thoughts?

No, it's Apple fault.

Apple should have put a Core i5 in the 13 inch with an ATI 5650 card ( runs cooler and faster than a GT330M ). And then switch off the onboard GPU. Pretty simple. ( or have a switchable GPU solution like Sony does. To switch between the GPU and the onboard GPU )

That is what a lot of other laptop builders are doing.

The reason why Apple didn't do this, is because the 2009 13 inch was stealing away the 15 inch sells. So this time for 2010, they made the 15 inch alot more attractive so that people will buy more 15 inch MBP instead of 13 ich.

 

[tdream]

You're the one making the claim. I've done my homework - I've looked at a lot of laptops. If I've missed it, and you know the laptop off the top of your head, tell me. The fact that you say you'd be "doing" my homework for me implies you don't actually know such a competitive laptop exists...you just assume you'd find it if you looked.

HP DV6T
Base config $999
15" 1366x768
i7 real quad core 720QM
320GB HD
4GB RAM
1GB nvidia 320m
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s.../psg/notebooks/High_performance/dv6tqe_series

That took all of 1 minute to find.

I care very much about the battery life

So do I, thats why I want to show how long it lasts under real world conditions.

Because real conditions involve watching a H.264 movie for the entire time your laptop is running? Apple lists "up to" for the hours usage (for 2009, iirc), and lists how they got that many hours. Gizmodo review lists 3:31 hours. I've seen a review for the new 15" that gets just shy of 8 hours for their test:
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-15-inch-core-i7.aspx?page=2

Yes why not. It's a laptop afterall. If I want to run a movie, I want to know how long it will last. There are movies in iTunes aren't there?

They were running the same kind of non intensive operations apple were.

Tests like these reviews do are more useful than your personal experience. These tests try to maintain fixed conditions for the duration (at least, I hope they do), and report what battery life is like under those conditions. Battery life is conditional on circumstances. Not just reading the battery time left icon while doing differing tasks.

Not to me they're not. Showing the battery in the best possible light isn't an objective test. You also have to show it under maximal conditions. And then inbetween which is real world imo, a mix of both. Then you get the full story.

I don't know much about the 2009 macbook pro. I've started researching now that the new ones have come out, and so I'm only talking about the value of the current model.

Regarding the price you listed - I took a look at the Dell USA website, and found the Inspiron 14 which seems to be close to what you claim (price was higher to get that CPU). It does seem to be a better deal compared to the 2009 13" macbook pro. Australian Dell website (where I live) does not have Inspiron 14. Closest Dell laptops to the Macbook Pro 13" 2010 model are not such a good deal compared to the Macbook. Even to 2009, they're expensive. They all seem comparably priced (macbook vs other pc laptops) for what you get.

Maybe in the USA the situation is different - I don't know. But you are talking about the 2009 model vs what's offered now. So maybe you'd have had a case two weeks ago before the refresh. It was my opinion just before the refresh that the Apple laptops were easily overpriced for what you got. But I'm talking about *now*.

They are more competitive now, it was released just last week so it gets to be competitive for a short while. Won't last long though. My point is if apple did want to keep it competitive they should of at least added the i3.

 

[mark28]

I'm still wondering why everyone is talking about the i3? It's like the Celeron of the i-series processors. I for one was expecting an i5, even if it was only an upper end option. As others are saying, the high end C2D is on par with the i3, but the i3 is cheap junk anyway, it's meant to go in low priced Dell & HP crap. A pro machine deserves an i5. I swear, if the macbook air gets refreshed and ends up with an i5, people are going to go ape s**t.

Same here, I can't believe people expected a i3 in the 13 inch macbook pro. It should alteast have a core i5 imo.

 

[PAC88]

.

 

[Apolloe]

HP DV6T
Base config $999
15" 1366x768
i7 real quad core 720QM
320GB HD
4GB RAM
1GB nvidia 320m
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s.../psg/notebooks/High_performance/dv6tqe_series

That took all of 1 minute to find.

Too sleepy to reply to more of what you said, it's late here. I'll just comment on the quoted portion: what laptop is this a competitor to? The 15" or the 13"? Surely not the latter, since this is a 15" laptop - of course you can get more power for cheaper if you make the laptop bigger.

If you're comparing this to the 15" macbook pro's, then this laptop has computing power cheaper. Graphics are not as fast, but more memory. Battery life sucks from checking one review. No idea what dimensions or weight are.

This "1 minute" of research has hardly shown me what I failed to find. This laptop is probably perfect for some people and their needs. My main argument is that in my research, the Macbook Pro's are competitively priced (at least with student discount). You can find a myriad of laptops that are cheaper, more expensive, lack this, have that - and when you consider all these options, the price for the Macbooks seemed to me to be about where you'd expect for all the various features you get.

 

[Dwalls90]

No, it's Apple fault.

Apple should have put a Core i5 in the 13 inch with an ATI 5650 card ( runs cooler and faster than a GT330M ). And then switch off the onboard GPU. Pretty simple. ( or have a switchable GPU solution like Sony does. To switch between the GPU and the onboard GPU )

That is what a lot of other laptop builders are doing.

The reason why Apple didn't do this, is because the 2009 13 inch was stealing away the 15 inch sells. So this time for 2010, they made the 15 inch alot more attractive so that people will buy more 15 inch MBP instead of 13 ich.

We don't know if that's truly Apple's intention, but if it is, they're going to miss on the newly founded performance/luxury 13" market (Sony Z is just one contender).